On Thu, 30 Jun 2005 19:07:09 -0400, Gary James wrote:

Thanks. I was just trying to once again make my argument that all
religions are frauds and all gods are false. I hoped to do that by
convincing interested readers that this can best be determined through
argument, as in the Great Books discussion groups. People aren't convinced
by narratives, but by having to defend their position face to face.
While your article is ammunition, it does no good without first getting
participation.

--
Glenn

On Thu, 30 Jun 2005 17:33:17 GMT, "Jerry Okamura"
<okamuraj005@hawaii.rr.com> wrote:

Slavery was obviously not a good thing for the enslaved, and the vast
majority of us owned no slaves. It was, however, vital to the
economic prosperity of the region at that time. Surely the slavery
question could have been solved with a little more time and patience
without devastating so much of the South. Do you think that had that
war never been fought, we'd still have slaves? I don't.

I don't know what would have been so terrible about letting us secede
without making a big fuss about it. I have read that we wouldn't have
been able to survive economically and if that were true, eventually
we'd have probably come crawling back. That way we'd only have been
humiliated, but without the bloodshed and devastation. And if we'd
survived economically, we could have been a neighbor and trading
partner.

No, I wouldn't like to live in North Korea, but then, I wouldn't like
to live in a great many places. As an American, I don't suppose I'd
be allowed to live there, even if I wanted to. If I were born a North
Korean, I imagine I'd be a brain-washed robot like the rest of them,
believing that that psychopathic little toad with the teased hair and
platform shoes was God's gift and that Americans were terrible people
who wished me ill.

I think Communism would have eventually collapsed of its own weight,
which is pretty much what happened in the end. That "from each
according to his ability and to each according to his need" stuff
sounds fine in print, but it's totally at odds with human nature.

I confess I've forgotten why we got into WWI. I'd have to read up on
it to tell you whether I would have opposed it or not. I do remember
that there was much isolationist sentiment here and I imagine I'd have
been in that group until the last minute. If staying out of it and
preserving that isolationist sentiment here had been a possibility,
that would have been my choice.

I don't think we really had any choice about WWII after the Japanese
attacked Pearl Harbor, and if I recall correctly, Germany declared war
on us first. That one we had to fight.

I certainly agree with you that many people die because of corrupt
leaders, and in a distressing number of cases, it's been with our
help, however inadvertently. We dole out money like there's no
tomorrow, the vast majority of which, in many cases, affords a lavish
lifestyle for the few at the top with none of the benefit dribbling
down to the poor and oppressed.

What do you see as the alternative? Letting them continue to live as
they are?

Japan and Germany have indeed done well. I know less about Japan than
about Germany, but I think they both had an advanced level of literacy
and both had enjoyed economic prosperity in the past, which, as I
mentioned previously, I believe to be necessary for what we call
democracy to flourish.

We were enjoying the greatest level of economic prosperity we'd ever
know in the post-war years and could afford to spend the massive
amounts of money on those countries which were required to rebuild
them, thus providing them with the basis for rebuilding their
economies. We are not currently enjoying a level of economic
prosperity here that makes doing that in Iraq an appealing prospect,
much less trying to change the whole Middle East.

We also maintained a rather large military presence in both countries
for some time. As a matter of fact, we're still there in some numbers
sixty years later.

No, but we have, and it's us they hate.

I would argue that the two have nothing to do with each other. Are
you suggesting that people like me are somehow subverting our
democracy?

It happens more often than not, apparently. It could even be argued
that it's the case right here.

Possibly, but I think it would be a bit more to the point if the
people in power did a little more studying on the subject.

We have obviously been reading different sources on that subject.
What evidence is there that the Viet Cong were on their last legs?

Micro managing by the civilian authorities was certainly one of the
reasons we failed in Vietnam. We knew before we ever got involved
that we might piss off the Russians and Chinese and could start WWIII,
so we apparently went in without much of a plan, which we demonstrated
by wasting 58,000 young American lives taking a little ground and then
giving it back over and over again. Maybe if we'd let the military
run the war, we could have won. Maybe we would have started WWIII.
We'll never know.

The outcome was apparent when we started to withdraw. The war was
already lost. What point was there in further serious resistance?
I think it's quite possible that after all those years of being
sprayed with Agent Orange, having villages destroyed to save them, and
having so many civilians killed, they might have thought that even
being under the Communist yoke was better than having us around. I
imagine they were just plain tired of fighting. After all, they'd
fought the French for years before finally running them off, and we
showed up right after that.

Emily

On Thu, 30 Jun 2005 18:24:08 -0400, Gary James wrote:


At least give me a clue as to why I should care.

--
Glenn

In article <e75f5$42c47870$4fc824e$24794@DIALUPUSA.NET>,
Glenn <minorgo@yahoo.com> wrote:

This is disappointing. I was enjoying the accounts of the birth of
self-promotional literature.

--
http://publicradiofan.com/cgi-bin/wh...type=non-music
http://www.uwtv.org/programs/display...asp?collid=233
End the Conversation http://tinyurl.com/atz5m

zzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzz .............................

In article <8ar8c19n0dljufrgpsuavckog4qd0oqmp0@4ax.com>,
Rumpelstiltskin <PleaseDoNotReplyByEmail@nowhere.net> wrote:
:On Thu, 30 Jun 2005 17:24:08 -0400, Gary James <gnjames43@yahoo.com>
:wrote:
:
:>On Thu, 30 Jun 2005 07:24:36 -0500, Glenn <minorgo@yahoo.com> wrote:
:>
:>>On Thu, 30 Jun 2005 08:36:57 -0400, Gary James wrote:
:>>
:>>> On 30 Jun 2005 02:02:49 GMT, awouk@blackhole.nyx.net (arthur wouk)
:>>> wrote:
:>>>
:>>>
:>>
:>>>>totally incorrect, unless you believe the fables in the five books of
:>>>>moses.
:>>>
:>>> That is the source of my information, not that I necessarily believe
:>>> them.
:>>>
:>>>
:>>My opinion was that the books of Moses were partly fable and partly
:>>history, the history adapted to the message. I did a quick search of the
:>>net and found a review of "Genesis as Agenda" from the Malaspina Great
:>>Books.
:>
:>Tacitus gives an alternative story of the events of Moses.
:>
:>Start with the third paragraph, "Some say that the Jews"
:>
:>http://classics.mit.edu/Tacitus/histories.5.v.html
:
:
:
: Interesting. The eruption of Santorini covered Crete with ash
:about 1400 BC, so the date seems about right. Refugees from
:Crete were a large factor in the rise of seminal Greek civilization
:in Mycenae, so it seems reasonable that some of the Cretans
:fleeing the now-infertile island might have escaped Southward
:instead of northward.
:
:


tacitus is only retelling the stories going around in his era.
there was no such thing as archeological research at that time.
so plausibility of a statement is meaningless.

when he was writing about his own era, and the archives of rome
were still extant, he has a better track record.
--
getting out of bed in the morning is an act of false confidence
- jules feifer
to email me, delete blackhole. from my return address

Rita - in answer to your question what problem I might have had with my
sons during the sixties,first, let me say that I was NOT referring to
problems with my sons, but was stating that those were terrible times of
excesses and indulgence; not a good time for raising children,when all
around them, the ME generation did more than growing their hair
long;they took drugs , dropped out, and made"music." and went on
welfare!!!

My oldest son,while at Columbia, saw some of the buildings being
burnt by the "hippies" among them. He was not one of them, and
shuddered at the extremism. The other one did grow his hair long - did
go to California, to find himself?? - Fortunately he did not find
himself (!!) and it was Uncle Sam who called him back and his student
deferment was reinstated, and he went back to College. and, slowly but
surely separated himself from the mindset of the sixties. Our
relationship with the two never faltered - and they did not go to
extremes - but the times were, indeed, more than growing hair long,
and/or making music. Most of them did not work - went on welfare -
dropped out- bummed around - went to CA - did drugs - but you know all
of that. If your children were not touched by the sixties, you were
fortunate. Many equally intelligent and devoted parents,as you were,
were not as fortunate - and their kids went the way of the sixties; some
seriously astray.
It was a time of disrespect, disenchantment and totally self-indulging
behavior. One could argue that these are the trademarks of adolescence
- but this went way too far - and became a dangerous way to live for
some of the youngsters - and,at the same time - many parents were still
deeply involved with the "Dr. Spock" mindset - and, failed to properly
raise their children - indulged them instead, and that in an era which
was already preaching self-indulgence - the ME generation.
THAT is what I meant.= = = Olly

Olly Mensch wrote:
I had four children who grew up under the influence of the "'60s"
revolution. One became a member of a Hindu spiritual group and became
a strick vegan. He was the oldest and would have been drafted if the
war in Vietnam had gone on. He asked us what we would do if he went to
Canada. We told him that we might not agree but would always give him
loving support. He didn't have to make that choice, fortunately. He
is now a responsible college math prof, after doing computer
programming for years. My other three were less influenced by the
social revolution.

I was in college continuing my education during the late '60's.
Sometimes I had to step over bodies on days there were sit-ins.
Busloads of agitators were brought in from Berkeley to try to stir
things up, but it was a state college with mostly commuters, so there
was little interest.

LIke most social revolutions, this one was eventually taken over by
extremists (the Weathermen or the Symbionese Liberation Army, for
instance). About the only good thing to come out of it was the birth
control pill which liberated women from unplanned pregnancy.

On Thu, 30 Jun 2005 22:32:58 GMT, Rumpelstiltskin
<PleaseDoNotReplyByEmail@nowhere.net> wrote:

That is all interesting, but it poses no real problem for me. In
Chapter one the creation is future tense: "'Let us make man in our
image,..."

In Chapter two, it is past tense, telling what did happen: "the LORD
God formed man from the dust of the earth."

Same event from two different perspectives. No problem.

What does give me problems is the divinity of Jesus as described in
the New Testament. The only justifiable reason we can or should
accept Jesus as divine is *if* he is the son of God. But the NT, in
order to claim he is the Jewish Messiah, give his genealogy back to
David, on *Joseph's* side. No way, Jose. Being the son of Joseph
and all of his glorious ancestors means absolutely nothing to me.
(Matthew 1:1)

On Fri, 1 Jul 2005 21:10:09 -0400, Oldie69@webtv.net (Olly Mensch) wrote:

Dr. Spock was my child rearing Bible. When I had my first baby
I had never been around an infant before in my life. I was clueless.
Spock got me through the nites of the baby crying for seemingly
no reason and guided me on child development -- what to expect,
what was "normal" and what not, and general rules for using positive
reinforcement with kids rather than punishment.

But I'd like to hear from you what was in Dr. Spock's book on
raising kids that offends you? Before Spock, many mothers believed
that picking up a crying baby "spoiled" the child. Spock taught
that babies cry when they are uncomfortable for some reason and
that prolonged crying is NOT normal. He gave mothers permission
to pick up and comfort a crying infant. Also to feed the infant
on the infant's own schedule, not on some rigid every four hours
no matter what, schedule.

I followed his methods and found they worked. And I had enough
kids to try out the methods on different kids with different
temperaments. My copy of Spock was dog-eared and I believe I
had to replace one copy with a new one because it had become
so worn.

I am appalled this good and wise man has become a symbol for
some of evil. Probably from people who did not follow his
methods and had problems with their kids.

Contrary to popular opinion, Spock did not advise parents to
allow a child to do anything it pleased. Nor did I. But the
harshest discipline I ever had to apply to any of my kids was
a kind of "time out" -- separating them from the others
temporarily or letting them suffer from the consequences of
their actions. If they made a mess, they had to clean it up,
if they offended someone they had to apologize.

My kids simply were not interested in the "counter culture."
They viewed those who were as "weird". Perhaps because they had
enjoyable activities to keep them busy. Our home was a drawing
card for their friends and there usually were kids in the back
yard on the small basketball court we had covered the grass
with asphalt to construct. Not pretty, but it served a good
purpose.

We were a liberal family and did talk about politics with the
kids. We encouraged them to work hard at any part-time job
they took on, but also to ask for more pay when they deserved
it. Starting out with mowing lawns and delivering newspapers
or babysitting, each managed to earn his or her own spending
money because this was not passed out. I freely paid for
music lessons which they asked for and loved.

Being a parent was not easy then or now. A parent has to use
a pragmatic approach to dealing with each issue or problem as it
arises. A rigid mindset is not helpful. We had families in our
neighborhood where the father was a martinet and the kids acted
out accordingly. I still say don't sweat the small stuff with
kids, allow them to face the consequences of their own mistakes
and allow for individual differences in not expecting each to
follow some preordained pattern.

But again, Olly, I challenge you to produce proof Dr. Spock
advised coddling children, ignoring bad behavior or allowing kids
to run wild. Did you ever read his book? I know some feel he
was bad because he did not advocate corporal punishment. My
studies in psychology bear out that such punishment does not
change behavior but at best may only temporarily suppress it.
And that the side effect is promoting aggression in the child.
And that is why we see so many criminals were from families where
the rod was used with abandon.

On Sat, 02 Jul 2005 09:22:55 -0400, Gary James wrote:

The reason for two gods is that they have two almost opposite
personalities. One is kind and giving, the other strict and warlike.
Christians call them Yahweh and Jehovah. They came together on the trade
route where the Jews had settled. All of which has no importance if
you follow my advice and learn how to read critically. God didn't create
man, it was the other way around. Luckily for us, man didn't resolve
the inconsistencies.

--
Glenn